Any time a candidate for one office says they will not run in for a different office later, don’t believe them. It’s a pre-election narrative to dispel rumors from their opponents that the first office is just a stepping stone. It also gives a sense of urgency to the candidate’s potential voters. Put me in office now because you won’t get a chance later, or so the story goes.

If anything, someone saying they won’t run for a higher office later is a sure indicator they will consider running for a higher office later. That’s why when Representative Beto O’Rourke (D-TX) said he wouldn’t run for President in 2020 whether he won his Senate race or not, I took it as a sure sign he would definitely run if he did well in Texas. I figured if he got blown away, he was done. If he won the Senate race, he’d probably wait until 2024 if President Trump won in 2020 or 2028 if a Democrat won in 2020.

The only way he’d run in 2020, by my estimation, was if he lost but came close. He lost to Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) by just over 200,000 votes. Cruz won in 2012 by over 1.2 million votes.

What I considered the trigger scenario for a Beto 2020 presidential run happened. Now, we’re seeing stories like these:

Before anyone comes to the conclusion I think I “called it,” I’m acutely aware that I missed Beto by a mile. Yes, I believed that the scenarios were aligned so that a close defeat would propel him to a 2020 presidential bid, but I also had assumed until about a week before the election that he was going to lose by a wide margin. Even on election day I predicted 7.5%. He lost by 2.6%, which in Texas means I missed it by nearly half a million votes. No, I didn’t see the risk he represented properly.

I see it now.

He has three major things going for him that, to me, make him the person to watch over the next year at least.

1. He’s the best fundraiser in the nation. Period. For a Senate race, he was able to raise $38 million in the third quarter alone and nearly $70 million total. This is small fries for a presidential run, but the only other Senate candidate to come close was Rick Scott in Florida. The #3 and #4 fundraisers – Claire McCaskill in Missouri and Bob Hugin in New Jersey – were able to raise $63 million combined. If he raised that much for a Senate race, he would be able to easily eclipse Hillary Clinton’s 2016 totals. The only person who is arguably better than O’Rourke at fundraising is Barack Obama, and he’ll surely be helping O’Rourke if he gets the nomination.
2. His national appeal is similar to Barack Obama’s. To be more accurate, his national appeal far exceeds Barack Obama’s appeal when he ran for the Senate in Illinois. These are different days so we can’t assume his head start on appeal will translate into more popularity than the former President if he were to win the nomination, but it bodes well for O’Rourke that he’s still getting a ton of attention two weeks after losing an election. At this point in 2016, even Democrats were begging Hillary Clinton to go away. But they haven’t had their fill on Beto yet.
3. He has nothing better to do. When the incoming representatives are sworn in next year, he’ll be a free man. Free to hang out in Iowa and New Hampshire. Free to attack Republicans over policies and Democrats over failures. Free to talk to bundlers, strategists, journalists, and voters. While his competition will be sitting in Senate committee meetings or running their business, O’Rourke will be in 2020 mode without having to hide it. Losing may have been a blessing in disguise.

The midterm elections demonstrated opposition to Trump is as rabid as his support. It’s hard to imagine someone as far to the left as O’Rourke winning. Then again, it was hard to imagine him getting over 48% of the vote in Texas.

If it wasn’t for the fact that I’m Always Right™, it would be easy to get discouraged by some of the reactions I get for taking so-called conservatives to task whenever they exchange their pusillanimous principles for their personal political purposes.

While not discouraging, it can be frustrating when members of various political factions put their so-called leaders on a pedestal to be lionized, almost worshiped, even when they break their promises or promote policies that are contrary to our conservative values.

An obvious example of what I’m talking about can be seen by the dwindling numbers of Trump’s cult-like sycophants who live not on bread alone, but on every word that proceeds from the mouth of their political god.

Lately, I’ve witnessed this same kind of unconditional loyalty for so-called conservative members of Congress who, despite their rhetoric to the contrary, are talking the conservative talk but not walking the conservative walk.

Last week I enshrined Senator Mike Lee in the Gutless On Principles (GOP) Hall of Shame after his repeated support of Ivanka Trump’s socialist feminist agenda. Even though he has developed a reputation of being 100% conservative, his political infatuation with Ivanka’s extremist agenda is a diametrically opposed to the conservative values he claims to hold.

Just as I’m often told by the Trump cult, Lee’s groupies have informed me that he is beyond reproach and that only a “George Soros-loving Hillary supporter” would dare call him out because “nobody’s perfect.” Check out a couple of the comments from my Facebook page:

Brady S. – “If you’re waiting for perfection, keep waiting, you’re never going to get it from any person. You can disagree with a person on an issue and policy, that doesn’t negate the rest of decisions they’ve made or who they are as a person. Basically, you’re virtue signaling, piggy backing off the backs of other conservatives to show how much more supposedly principled you are. One conservative once said “The person who agrees with you 80% of the time is a friend and an ally not a 20% traitor.” Ronald Reagan. Nobody is going to agree with you 100% of the time on everything, you’d be wise to learn that lesson.”

MaryAnn P. – “Well – no one is perfect.”

Ah, yes. The “nobody’s perfect” card. The classic defense of indefensible behavior.

While we are indeed imperfect beings, we aren’t supposed to use that as an excuse to settle for less than perfection. Instead, we are to press on toward the goal of perfection and continue reaching for those things that will bring it to pass. And we are also instructed to “judge righteously” the deeds (actions) of others.

Those who incorrectly believe that there is no place for judging the deeds of others are wrong and/or lazy. Such thinking is what inspired a recent Babylon Bee satirical story about how evangelicals would vote for Satan himself if he had an “R” after his name.

But let’s put voting for Republican Satan aside for a moment.

I also hear a lot about compromise — a word as equally misunderstood as the word judging — but compromise only applies to how we achieve the goal; it doesn’t apply to the goal itself. When you change the goal instead of the methodology, that’s capitulation, not compromise.

For example, so-called conservatives promised to defund Planned Parenthood and could have compromised on how to get it done in a myriad of ways. Instead, they capitulated by passing spending bills that fully funded the baby butchers in exchange for defense spending and keeping the government open.

To quote a well-known insurance commercial, “That’s not how this works. That’s now how any of this works.”

When their rhetoric fails to match their results, and when they capitulate on our goals and call it compromise, I will call out faux-conservatives regardless of what faction they belong to.

And despite accusations from supporters of Trump, Cruz, Lee, and other so-called conservatives, not every politician needs to measure up to my standards . . . but they should.

Originally posted on StridentConservative.com.

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is distributed by the Salem Radio Network and is heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook.

Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Franklin Delano Roosevelt is one of the most overrated leaders in world history. What would have happened if America saw this and in 1936 voted for Alfred Landon instead? Taking office in 1933, at the height of the Great Depression, FDR oversaw the poor economy until the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor in 1941. Majority of historians would agree that the Great Depression ended because of World War.

In stricter economic terms the economy improved only to have a relapse in 1937. But it wasn’t until the war, or really after the war, did Americans see good economic times. We’re going to get into the alternative history, but first the Great Depression needs to be put in comparison to past economic crises in order to set up the event which changes the alternate timeline.

Jeffrey Hummel, professor of economics at San Jose State University, constructed this chart using methodology detailed here. In American history, recessions generally did not last more than two years. This one lasted nearly four years on paper. In this timeline, Americans realize that recessions should not last this long and change management like a sports team firing their coach after a few losing seasons. The year is 1936, and FDR loses his reelection to Republican Alfred M. Landon.

Unfortunately for America at this time Alfred Landon, would have made a mediocre, at best, president. Alfred Landon campaigned on lowering taxes and balancing the budget, but also supported numerous pieces of Roosevelt’s new deal. He was a politically successful Republican holdout from the Democrat victories in 1932 as governor of Kansas. The biggest contrast between FDR and FDR-lite candidate, Alfred Landon, would have been social security, or at least how social security was implemented. Landon vehemently opposed the Social Security Act. So in 1937, the Social Security Act is repealed shortly after taking effect.

Being a progressive would ultimately have negated the fiscal hawkish nature of Landon, as it typically does in other politicians. But the area of taxation is where we do see a difference. Being an economic novice, FDR increased government spending and wanted to pay for it by increasing taxes. He never knew about the Laffer Curve. FDR at one point fought for a 100% income tax for the highest earners, a move today’s left apparently lauds. The Foundation For Economic Education writes:

In 1935, with FDR’s push, the top marginal tax rate hit 79 percent. Few paid that rate, but thousands of Americans were in the 50-percent bracket. Entrepreneurs had to hand over more than half of any income above a certain level.

Facing disincentives to make capital investments, many entrepreneurs used their wealth cautiously—investing in tax-exempt bonds, art collections, and foreign banks. Little wealth went into creating jobs, so high unemployment persisted. During World War II FDR raised taxes further, to 94 percent on all income over $200,000.

President Landon, instead pushes for tax cuts and receives them. While spending remains elevated, government revenue increases. The economy improves, mitigating the relapse. However President Landon issues his new version of the Social Security Act, one that seems to be more of a welfare program than the more separated behemoth that is the SSA. In this timeline, it is likely that the Great Depression ends around World War 2 as well.

SCOTUS

A key factor at play is Landon’s less hostile view towards separation of powers. The Supreme Court, thanks in large part to Calvin Coolidge’s rather conservative appointees, struck down numerous chunks of the New Deal. FDR sought to pack the courts in response. After this failure, FDR finally intimidated his way into a vacancy. In fact, a floodgate of nominations opened. He nominated Senator Hugo Black, a ardent New Deal supporter and member of the Ku Klux Klan. Justice Black was a widely influential judge authoring the Korematsu v United States 1944 (6-3) decision, one where 6 of 8 justices appointed by Roosevelt voted for internment camps.

Most appointees did not outlast the 1940s. Justice William Douglas was one of two Democrats that voted for the infamous Roe v Wade decision. But Republicans are to blame for the judges who rendered that decision. But the trajectory of SCOTUS nominees is now impossible to calculate, in terms of who would have been nominated, how long they would have lasted, and the distribution of vacant seats in the future presidencies.

World War 2

Does President Landon win a second term? Most Presidents with recent exceptions such as Hoover and Roosevelt win a second term. This term, beginning in 1941, would have overseen the start of US involvement in World War 2. President Landon was more than certainly a weaker presence to have in the Oval Office in a time of war. However the United States generals would largely remain unchanged in this timeline, as America would have selected its top officers. Japan was doomed to fail due to their technological inferiority.

The Manhattan Project would have commenced, and the next President would surely have dropped the bomb, as it was the rational thing to do. Alfred Landon was more isolationist at heart. However he would have given aid to Britain while rejecting the neutrality.

Closing The Gap

Interestingly enough, this timeline closes. While Truman likely doesn’t become President, Dwight Eisenhower does. As the successful general in the European Theater, he would win due to sheer popularity and qualifications. It’s hard from Eisenhower to assert that the chain of Presidents would have been different. President Trump would be number 46, as the United States would have had a President that didn’t serve four terms. That being said, the 22nd Amendment likely wouldn’t exist.

Presidents, like Obama, would still have tried to use government intervention to fix the economy because there was no free market solutions put in place in the 1930s to show that the market would correct itself and faster if the government allowed it too. Social security would exist but the collection of funds would likely be different, much like the differences between Obamacare and Romneycare. The only severe difference from the lack of a FDR second term is the Supreme Court. Roosevelt replaced all but one judge on a court which began hostile to his New Deal. In the alternative history, he appoints zero.

The lack of clear differences between Alfred Landon and FDR make this thought exercise truly underwhelming. Essentially this exercise replaced a radical Democrat with a progressive Republican. The 1936 presidential election bares many similarities to the 2012 election. Party establishment rammed a candidate that hardly opposed the incumbent. That candidate runs a poor campaign and gets crushed accordingly. In the end, the biggest known change in this alternative history is legacy. FDR’s rating as a top President would be nonexistent. While the alternative is disappointing, it seems, at a glance, more than nominally superior than the actual course of events.

Further Reference: Alfred Landon’s Acceptance Speech at the 1936 RNC